https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245977 After the amendment of Rule 9B by Notification No. 45/99-CE(NT) dated 25.06.1999, refund claims for the later period were subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Uniform or identical sale prices were held insufficient, by themselves, to show that the duty burden had not been passed on to customers. As the appellant produced no material before the lower authority or the Tribunal to discharge that burden, the further refund was rejected. Refund for the period up to 24.06.1999 remained undisturbed, but the later claim failed on unjust enrichment. en-us Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245977 After the amendment of Rule 9B by Notification No. 45/99-CE(NT) dated 25.06.1999, refund claims for the later period were subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Uniform or identical sale prices were held insufficient, by themselves, to show that the duty burden had not been passed on to customers. As the appellant produced no material before the lower authority or the Tribunal to discharge that burden, the further refund was rejected. Refund for the period up to 24.06.1999 remained undisturbed, but the later claim failed on unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245977